IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

No. What difference is there in believing in a sky daddy and believing in fairies?

Morning Dafydd, do you have much snow over there?

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

Well, you started the OP by saying that that is how you envision "believers".

You never made a distinction between fairy-fanatics and other types of believers. If you do believe in that distinction, then I take back what I said but you certainly didn't make it clear. From your OP it seemed that you put them all into one single pigeonhole entitled "believers".

You don't appear to know the definition of straw man. Pointing out that there is no proof for the existence of invisible magic beings is not a straw man.

It doesn't matter whatever reasoning is employed to justify a conclusion that there is no God/god, we are in actual fact none the wiser. Simply, humanity is not in a position to say what is the origin of our existence, or what else exists.

Oh and I know by the way about the big bang, QM etc, again we are none the wiser.

Again, thats not what i asked for. What evidence do you have that the natural world is all there is ? Why does it need a mind to write a book, or a computer code, but not to create the information stored in DNA ??!!

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

All gods are fictitious. The highlighted part is meaningless mystical mush. Why would we need a deity to cause our existence?

It's really simple when something bad happens they pray to god. Instead of expending effort blaming themselves and expending effort trying to understand what happened. Atheists have to search for comfort and find ways to deal with whatever maybe even post about it on some interent board.

Sounds like a vote in favour of atheism to me. Self blame may or may not be appropriate (either way it is at least more realistic than blaming the Devil or assuming it's a punishment from God, which is another kind of self blame anyway), trying to understand what happened, trying to deal with it and seeking comfort from actual people rather than imaginary beings all seem like pretty sensible ways of dealing with 'something bad' happening.

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

it seems you have a hard time to understand that i am not asking to prove a negative. I have clearly asked to present positive evidence for naturalism.

You're being asked to provide any evidence at all that a god or gods exist. You are making a claim that an invisible skybeing exists. So prove it. Show us the evidence.

Your question, on the other hand, makes no sense. It's like asking somebody to prove that capitalism exists.

And your approach is a fallacy. Even if naturalism/capitalism/atheism/etc. didn't exist, that doesn't prove that god(s) exist. You still have to prove that with positive and verifiable evidence. You don't 'win by default' here.

__________________Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.- Ian Faith

Indeed, its like a HD, which stores information. You need to answer where the information stored in DNA came from.......

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not at all like that. To extend the computer analogy, think of a computer where every component -- the HD, the screen, the keyboard, the CPU -- has all the information needed to build a complete computer. That would be pretty cool, but it's not the way human beings design things, nor does it function in any way like a HD.

As to where the information comes from, keep in mind that it took billions of years to accumulate that information through trial and error. It was only very recently, in geological time, that the code grew robust enough to allow for multi-cellular organisms. Very inefficient use of time if there were an intelligent agent behind it.

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Let's take an intelligent person, A. Conan Doyle, and let's make him believe in something silly, say the Cottingly Fairies. Now he wants to tell you that they're real and they're the greatest thing on the planet.

This is how I look at believers. There's not significant difference for me between the Cottingly Fairies and Jehovah.

People believe what they feel comfortable with and its hard to reason with them.

__________________If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

All gods are fictitious. The highlighted part is meaningless mystical mush. Why would we need a deity to cause our existence?

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known?

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known?

Can you elaborate on specifically what you feel is explained by 'Goddidit' that isn't explained by natural explanations?

The phrase 'alternative explanation' suggests 'Goddidit' is an explanation which I take issue with.

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Well, you started the OP by saying that that is how you envision "believers".

You never made a distinction between fairy-fanatics and other types of believers. If you do believe in that distinction, then I take back what I said but you certainly didn't make it clear. From your OP it seemed that you put them all into one single pigeonhole entitled "believers".

Originally Posted by tsig

That's probably because they all believe.

But they don't all believe with the same amount of blindness and unwillingness to question their beliefs. Not all believers are unable to question their beliefs. Not all believers are close minded obtuse brain washed people. That's my point: That the OP is putting them all into one single pigeonhole.

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Fairies are a fictitious concept generated in the human mind. God is in some cases a fictitious concept generated in the human mind, however in other cases it is not. In the latter case it can be a cypher for the cause of our existence, a deity for example, and numerous other things.

So what it seems to me you're saying is that a cypher for the cause of our existence (which apparently has quite a variable definition so therefore no one outside of your head can possibly be aware of what definition it is you're using) is not a fictitious concept?

If it's fact, then it can explained easily and briefly to mystic and non-mystic alike, right? Or will you be redefining what 'fact' means as well?

Originally Posted by punshhh

Well, can you give an alternative explanation for our existence. As I said before I know about the big bang etc, that is not an explanation for our existence. Its an explanation of how the world we find ourselves in works, nothing more.

Sounds to me like you're wanting to know why you're here on Earth in the first place? Why do you think the answers are found in mysticism? Why not read the Good Book; it has all the answers you need.

Quote:

Now the more subtle point, do you think it is possible to think and talk about something which is not understood, or known?

Not meaningfully, no.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I don't need any special pleading, logic has provided me with an infinitely large gap to fit any God/god into, if I wanted to hide it.

Then it shouldn't take you long to concisely and accurately define what this infinitely large gap is. Using logic, of course.

Quote:

Anyway back to my point, some believers and non believers consider the existence of a God/god, which is not a fiction and may be the origin of our existence.

...some non-believers consider the existence of a God/god...? LOL

Please stop redefining or using words that have commonly understood meanings to try and make your 'point'.

Quote:

If fairies were comparable, then there would be folk believing in omnipotent non fictional fairies.

Apparently, there are quite a few. If you'd pretend for a moment you were unbiased, you'd see that.

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder

But they don't all believe with the same amount of blindness and unwillingness to question their beliefs. Not all believers are unable to question their beliefs. Not all believers are close minded obtuse brain washed people. That's my point: That the OP is putting them all into one single pigeonhole.

To the OP apparently those distinguishing characteristics don't seem to matter much. Putting all 'believers [in x]' in the one, single category is valid even if it offends your sensibilities.

__________________"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder